What you wish for
Think what our Government wishes for. Is it really bettering our economy when they should decide to lower penalty rates? It would affect mostly casuals and permanent part timers, which represent an almost unknown percentage of our workforce. I did try to google this information once and came only up with a statistic from the year 2014. Then it was between 19 and 20 percent. I am not convinced, since three members of my family are casuals.They would like to have a permanent working position. They are missing out on holidays and sick leave. Yes it is payed for in their rates but it is filling in for less hours. They feel by not turning up when needed, that they may be replaced. When one is underemployed, automatically there are less taxes to be payed, where I ask is that helping our government to pay for services. Then there will be less money this part of our workforce can spend. We have a workforce to accommodate, workers which prefer less hours and give flexibility to most of the industries. When these 19 per cent have less money to spend through any loss of their penalty rates our economy will be worse off for sure. Even when we want to argue it could lower the price of goods and services. Out of experience this has seldom happened. More likely we are creating more and more modern slaves with sub existence. We should not forget, underemployed Workers pay less towards superannuation. Those members of the workforce unlikely support a building industry, since getting a house for them selves is out of their reach. Small businesses will not be able to pay more taxes to accommodate the shortfall of the government. Less money in the hands of underemployed consumers is definitely not good for small business or Government.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
K. Kruger, Tilba
Seagrass before Common Sense
Most Narooma businesses rely on the annual influx of holiday makers. Many of these visitors are fishers who come here each summer to fish the Montague reefs and surrounding waters. Given the importance of this activity to the town’s economy, why on earth would a local council modify the key boat launching ramp at Apex Park in a way that has slowed down the launching and retrieval rates, and created a safety hazard for onlookers? I cannot repeat the unprintable comments of numerous visiting fishermen who were forced to find alternative launching facilities because of the long wait at Apex Park. Apart from the time taken by less experienced boaters to negotiate the narrow eastern ramp, boats were being left on the central ramp while vehicles were being parked some distance away. When I returned to the ramp on a strong outgoing tide, the back eddy on the western ramp slammed my boat against the pontoon. If the onlookers that were sitting on the pontoon when I launched, were still in the same position, they could have been seriously injured. A boat being retrieved from the eastern ramp was equally affected by the strong tide hitting against the central pontoon barrier. The upgrade of the Apex ramp was proposed some years ago, and local fishers were promised a new ramp and additional mooring facilities to the east of the existing ramp. One has to ask how this proposition turned into a central pontoon that takes up valuable launching space and diminishes the effectiveness of the facility. I can only assume that Council buckled to pressure from Fisheries and the Marine Park Authority to protect the small area of seagrass that an eastern pontoon might affect. There is 150 hectares of seagrass in Wagonga inlet that is in no danger of decline. It has been proven that this seagrass can be successfully transplanted, and its colonisation of bare sand flats has been slow but effective. Where then is the justification for wasting $350,000 of ratepayer and Fishing Trust monies to build a “white elephant” that might save a few square metres of sea grass, but creates more boating problems. This exercise epitomises what is wrong with council. It goes through the motions but never listens; it is the bureaucrats and not elected councillors or community groups who decide what the community needs; and the environmental considerations, no matter how insignificant or manageable, take precedence over community and common sense.
Ian Hitchcock, Dalmeny
Unspoilt South Coast
The most recent Eurobodalla holiday guide is a beautifully illustrated booklet designed by council staff to promote tourism in our region. Its guidelines for “a quintessential family holiday” include surfing, cycling, bushwalking, fishing and boating in a glorious seaside/bushland environment. It saddens me however that also listed among the yearly events is HuntFest – the American-style celebration of animal killing held every June on crown land in the heart of Narooma. Such an event is totally at odds with the life-affirming ethos of the shire and the welfare of its citizens. A wall of guns for sale, a deer being skinned, a booth promoting safaris in Africa, animal heads on walls, or photographs of hunters with their kill, cannot be what our shire is about. While this event may suit the powerful hunters’ lobby from outside the shire it has never been supported by the majority of residents or holiday visitors. In fact many of them do not even know about it. Recently one councillor expressed the opinion that a festival of hunting rated no more attention or debate than a “Teddy Bear’s Picnic” and there was no connection between HuntFest and the sale of guns! He and other councillors appeared to believe it would neither be inappropriate or illegal to extend the licence for a further five years. If you do not want this pristine area to become a mecca for hunters and a public outlet for guns, please contact the Eurobodalla Shire Council before it’s too late.
Susan Cruttenden, Dalmeny
